Politics and the weather also share a curious relationship with speculation. Political commentators, like meteorologists, know roughly what is going to happen over a given time period, but are often rightly cautious when it comes to explicitly stating anything, for fear of looking like a clown later on. Such is the capricious climate of the air, both in the sky and between the ears of our leaders.

It is through this relationship with the media, however, that the connection between the weather and Westminster breaks down. Not even Rupert Murdoch has yet found a way to control the weather, although the reader is advised to give him time.

The fiery fraternisation between the media and politics has occupied plenty of minds in plenty of pondering over plenty of years. One of the latest to tackle it is the FT's John Lloyd, whose book What the Media is doing to Our Politics (synopsis here, Harry's Place Q&A here) came out in August 2004. In it he looks at how the struggle for the trust of—and thus power over—the people, has morphed over the last fifty years from somewhat timid inquiry to questions about glamorous (if a little seedy-sounding) cocktails as part of a "theatrical distrust of individual politicians and a furious and calculated indifference to the real-life intricacies of world policy-making".

This question of the shifting ground, the changing climate, if you will, was also the focus of a talk Mr Lloyd gave to an audience at the DCA earlier this month. In his talk, and I assume, therefore, in his book, Mr Lloyd argued that the importance of the media has grown considerably over the last few decades, as the hard-edged ideological battle became a murky footprint in a field of history books and governmental opposition became a pallid and ineffective force, crying out for substitution. As stated explicitly by men whose seniority in such matters is marked indelibly in their brows, people such as Humphrys, Paxman and a succession of director generals of the BBC, the media stormed in to occupy opposition territory.

This surge was not intrinsically problematic, but the situation has become strained as the standard of political debate has, over time, gone the way of both Robert Kilroy-Silk and our civil liberties. The media may be keeping a check on the politicians, but who's keeping a check on the media? Who can keep a check on the media and their pernicious nurturing of cynical alienation?

Add in some comments about how the power of both politics and the media are in decline (party affiliation down; "some newspapers will disappear soon") and you pretty much have Mr Lloyd's speech. I shall refrain from quoting any more, as the seminar was apparently under Chatham House Rule.

Whether the weakness of the opposition is a corollary of the media-inspired spread of democracy—did it fill a void or shunt its way in?—went undiscussed.

The struggle for power, be it Robin Day providing John Nott's political epitaph, or David Cameron telling Paxo that his chosen line of questioning demeaned the Newsnight man's profession, is an inevitable side show of modern-day politics; but as I've asked before, is it getting out of hand? Is it detrimental to the country as a whole?

It is no doubt foolish to try to formulate an answer for either of them, because even were one to decide that things were in a mess, what could one do about it? How do we tame these beasts? The answer, sadly, is that we can't.

In any human society, there will exist mass organisations designed to impose themselves over the canaille. We can't legislate against the media: not only that would only fan the flames, but it would also just be silly. We can hope for journalists to do as we all should do, and take some personal responsibility for themselves, but then we get caught in a prisoner's dilemma situation where the Pareto-optimal solution of all journalists being upstanding decent folk is unattainable thanks to the rewards on offer for selling one's soul, integrity and dignity to the mob. The public, lest we forget, love a bit of sensational rubbish.

Furthermore, the logic behind the call for a 'better journalism' (better journalism=better informed citizenry=better choices=better polity) may be nice and cosy, but it could have a downside. A better informed electorate is also a more demanding electorate, and an uneducable (old dog, new tricks) demanding electorate demands sensationalist rubbish, getting us precisely nowhere.

As easy as it is to point out that much of one's life and one's happiness and the effectiveness of one's democracy, for example, is, like one's health, one's own responsibility, it is very hard to pitch. The health of democracy, like climate change, is too abstract for most people to care about, whether they realise it actually affects them or not.

Ergo, the issue is, and will forever remain, stuck well inside a Somebody Else's Problem Field, left to rot, being routinely mulled over until it gets fried along with everything else when global warming finally delivers its big 'told you so' kick to the planet's privates.